- (1.) This judgment of mine will dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 1548, 1549 and 1551 of 1983, all filed by the Union of India, as they arise out of the common. Award given by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated 2.5.1983. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and may thus be noticed.
(2.) The Union of India acquired certain land comprising of small plots situated in the revenue estates of seven villages by issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 24.1.1977. The purpose of acquisition was that the land was needed for defence of India. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the acquired land as follows : Chahi/Nehri Rs. 22,000/- per acre Inferior Chahi/Nehri which was under brick Kiln and in depression Rs. 13,200/- per acre. Gair Mumkin Chahi Rs. 22,000/- per acre. Barani Rs. 17,000/- per acre Banjar Qadim Gair Mumkin Rs. 11,200/- per acre. The claimants were not satisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation and sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). The Additional District Judge determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 13.50 Paise per square yard along with the other benefits. While determining the compensation of Rs. 13.50 Paise per square yard, the Additional District Judge placed reliance upon an Award given by this Court, copy of which was produced as Exhibit A. 1. The Union of India did not produce any evidence. Even the claimants did not produce any other documentary evidence except the copy of the Award given by this Court in the shape of Exhibit A. 1. It has rightly been found by the Additional District Judge in the impugned award that by virtue of notification of the same date, that is, 24.1.1977 land in seven villages including village Kheri Gujjran was acquired. Notification in Exhibit A. 1 and in the present case is of the same date.
(3.) After going through the Award under challenge and the entire evidence brought on the record of the case, this Court has reached the conclusion that the Award is based upon the judicial instance Exhibit A. 1 determining the market value under the same notification dated 24.1.1977. No note-worthy argument could be advanced compelling me to take a different view of the matter.;